Rauschenberg's Bed

“As beds, these sell at singularly inflated prices, but one could sleep in either of them: Rauschenberg has expressed the fear that someone might just climb into his bed and fall asleep” (Wartenberg 210).
This quote, from the Danto chapter, seems to me to be a direct reference to Goodman’s emphasis on the question ‘what is art’? I would further say that this quote supports Goodman. Rauschenberg’s fear can only be based on the knowledge that if anyone decided to use his bed as a bed it would no longer function as art. It would then be a bed, and its function would be as an object to be slept in. As the bed cannot function as both at the same time, Rauschenberg should be afraid.
However, Goodman states at the end of his chapter that “the Rembrandt painting remains a work of art, as it remains a painting, while functioning only as a blanket” (Wartenberg 203). There seems to be a distinction between a Rembrandt painting—which can function as art and as a blanket simultaneously—and Rauschenberg’s bed—which can only be one or the other. So, perhaps Rauschenberg’s bed is not art and a requisite of art should be that it can function as art and as something else simultaneously. Could this be?